Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Pay Me
Topic Started: May 20 2015, 09:19 PM (176 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/what-if-everybody-didnt-have-to-work-to-get-paid/393428/
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Hmmm, so he wants people to give him money so he can live, but any extra money he makes from his writing he will keep.

If he were truely passionate about this, any extra money he would make should be given to others to that they can live for free.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
taiwan_girl
May 21 2015, 06:05 AM
If he were truely passionate about this, any extra money he would make should be given to others to that they can live for free.
+1.

And I think that would be ideal.

I don't subscribe to the Puritanical belief that there's some sacred honor in sacrificing your life for some miserable task. I think it'd be great if we could all be productive in our own ways without the need of money. (Roddenberry liked this idea, too, by the way.) But then we get into the definition of productive and how we value different services, so I don't see this working anytime soon.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Aqua Letifer
May 21 2015, 08:30 AM
taiwan_girl
May 21 2015, 06:05 AM
If he were truely passionate about this, any extra money he would make should be given to others to that they can live for free.
+1.

And I think that would be ideal.

I don't subscribe to the Puritanical belief that there's some sacred honor in sacrificing your life for some miserable task. I think it'd be great if we could all be productive in our own ways without the need of money. (Roddenberry liked this idea, too, by the way.) But then we get into the definition of productive and how we value different services, so I don't see this working anytime soon.
I agree - in some ways a pure communistic system is ideal. Everybody does what they can to the best of their ability. The needs of society are all taken care of.

However, human nature being what it is, jealously, greed, etc. soon make something like that impossible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
taiwan_girl
May 21 2015, 08:36 AM
Aqua Letifer
May 21 2015, 08:30 AM
taiwan_girl
May 21 2015, 06:05 AM
If he were truely passionate about this, any extra money he would make should be given to others to that they can live for free.
+1.

And I think that would be ideal.

I don't subscribe to the Puritanical belief that there's some sacred honor in sacrificing your life for some miserable task. I think it'd be great if we could all be productive in our own ways without the need of money. (Roddenberry liked this idea, too, by the way.) But then we get into the definition of productive and how we value different services, so I don't see this working anytime soon.
I agree - in some ways a pure communistic system is ideal. Everybody does what they can to the best of their ability. The needs of society are all taken care of.

However, human nature being what it is, jealously, greed, etc. soon make something like that impossible.
Well, I think everything absolute is terrible.

Conservatives are quick to deride the merits of Communism, how it's a great idea but doesn't work in practice etc. but they choose to ignore the perils of absolute Capitalism, which is just as bad.

I do think there's a middle ground here, though, and a way to make this work at least on partial terms.

From January to May this year alone, the Australian Council for the Arts has already given out a billion dollars in grants to individuals alone—not companies, organizations or film crews. They donate a much higher percentage of their federal budget to fund artists than we do quite simply because they think it's more important. This is basically what this guy is advocating, what he might call "social income," only the money's coming from tax dollars, not direct donations.

The Australian Council's pretty good at this, too, because they've been at this for awhile. They have a much better application system than we have for similar programs.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
taiwan_girl
May 21 2015, 06:05 AM
Hmmm, so he wants people to give him money so he can live, but any extra money he makes from his writing he will keep.

If he were truely passionate about this, any extra money he would make should be given to others to that they can live for free.
Quote:
 
Scott Santens - Citizen of Earth and New Orleans. Writer and advocate of basic income for all. Bachelor of Science in Psychology


He wants people who have proper jobs to fund his f*cking around and pontificating on the internet.

Yeah, good luck with that.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Aqua Letifer
May 21 2015, 08:53 AM
taiwan_girl
May 21 2015, 08:36 AM
Aqua Letifer
May 21 2015, 08:30 AM
taiwan_girl
May 21 2015, 06:05 AM
If he were truely passionate about this, any extra money he would make should be given to others to that they can live for free.
+1.

And I think that would be ideal.

I don't subscribe to the Puritanical belief that there's some sacred honor in sacrificing your life for some miserable task. I think it'd be great if we could all be productive in our own ways without the need of money. (Roddenberry liked this idea, too, by the way.) But then we get into the definition of productive and how we value different services, so I don't see this working anytime soon.
I agree - in some ways a pure communistic system is ideal. Everybody does what they can to the best of their ability. The needs of society are all taken care of.

However, human nature being what it is, jealously, greed, etc. soon make something like that impossible.
Well, I think everything absolute is terrible.

Conservatives are quick to deride the merits of Communism, how it's a great idea but doesn't work in practice etc. but they choose to ignore the perils of absolute Capitalism, which is just as bad.

I do think there's a middle ground here, though, and a way to make this work at least on partial terms.

From January to May this year alone, the Australian Council for the Arts has already given out a billion dollars in grants to individuals alone—not companies, organizations or film crews. They donate a much higher percentage of their federal budget to fund artists than we do quite simply because they think it's more important. This is basically what this guy is advocating, what he might call "social income," only the money's coming from tax dollars, not direct donations.

The Australian Council's pretty good at this, too, because they've been at this for awhile. They have a much better application system than we have for similar programs.
Which is why I'm a Republican, not a Libertarian.

I don't think "unfettered" works well in any form of government. No matter if the government isaddressing the needs and the wants of the population as a whole or the needs and the wants of the individual.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply